thedesihobbit

Given the media attention startups are now getting in India, the contigency of not getting paid highly unlikely. If the company was insolvent, then perhaps. But in this case they secured $8mm. If the company defaults on their dues, the story of startups being mythical and not value creating entities would blow in the media.

As far as the police is concerned, they are highly inept, dysfunctional, and enjoy discretionary powers. Most people don't trust them or their judgment, and wish they never have to deal with the police.

Haha. I agree, my previous answer doesn't come across as consistent. But I was typing from an app I recently started using and I didn't know where the edit button was. It might explain the age of my account too. I just discovered this site.

The central point I was trying to make in my reply was that getting fired (or being a college dropout or bankrupt) is a huge social stigma. It's a relic, in my opinion, of the pre-liberalization times.

"A good chunk of our planet didn't have that prior to 80s, not just India." This is plain wrong. It was hard to open new business because of lack of cheap credit and license permit system. Most of the developed world had systems in place for half a century before we had them. We didn't have banks, we relied on funds from friends and family, or the shadow banking system that is so prominent in Gujarati and Marwari communities. We didn't have the economic freedom to start large organizations, and those who could, were the elite families who had access, and stranglehold over the govt. They had the power and connections to use their levers in govt to acquire licenses and contracts. Which might explain why we have most number of inherited billionaires in the richest Indians list.

Ok, so why is this history relevant? Getting laid off as a concept hasn't seeped in the public psyche yet. Because it a huge social stigma and because for many working for corporate is recent experience. There weren't many to speak of. Add to that, there hasn't been a single recession.

".. they (the employees) would probably never get their wages." Do you really think the founders would not pay? In this age where the smallest stories can get wide attention, I don't think they can ever get away with something like this.

So what is the dispute about? 1. On the surface, about timing of payment. For which they can work out a resolution, but ganging up on anyone is not a good way to resolve issues. Employees aren't that powerless, that they have to resort to physical means - it is not the most effective means. Internet and sites like Twitter has leveled the field a little for everyone. If ganging up is the most effective means to deal with this, then it is mostly a lack of imagination on the part of those employees.

2. At the core, about getting fired. Their anger is about getting fired. Founders have handled it ineptly. If their jobs became redundant because of automation of orders, the firm should have set the expectations right from the start. They certainly shouldn't have laid them off in a sudden move.

Also, what I think, from a plain econ 101 pov, is that harder we make firing, slower hiring becomes - because vacancies won't open easily, and more difficult is it to get hired into good jobs. Hiring and firing should be easy - determined solely by economic rationalie. The more efficient labour market is, the better off everyone is.

My only point is that ganging up is no solution - which they did because of the emotive issue. In the long run, it clips the wings of the individual.

Can I heart this?

This post is spot on.

Sorry for not being clear. The law would say that it's a criminal act. But law is only words on paper, on the word, it is the sensibilities of the people that gives law its force.

Most people here would condemn the founder and think the gang was justified in bullying the founder. Take a look at any comment thread.

Hence law is of no effect.

Not exactly kidnapping. More like curtailing someone else's liberty and freedom of movement. He was restricted in his office space.

The funny thing is: there were police and politicians involved on the scene! If they too cornered him, forget about crimes and the application of law.

You must consider a few things. India didnt have a lot of private organizations to work for before the 80s. And most of the youth are second generation college educated. At least the ones you're reading about.

Post Independence in 1947, govt jobs have been held in very high regard and no one gets fired from those jobs. They're mostly patronage.

Getting fired is a concept is still a new concept for most. People don't get fired, they're asked to resign. Even labour laws haven't been updated with the times. You can hire, but can't fire.

Also, people feel entitled to job security here and have not experienced a single recession in the last 30 years.

You must understand, Tiny Owl pays very well. Relatively. People with six months of managerial experience are getting paid $40,000. That's a lot here. It takes 8-10 years to get to that pay in regular large organizations.

But where they went wrong: 1. Hiring one bad apple who encouraged others to gang up on the founder. This is no way to resolve a professional dispute.

2. Not anticipating redundancy in positions well in advance, and communicating and disclosing the risks. Perhaps those jobs could have had a built in expiry and conditional renewal clause in their contracts.

But had they been growing as they did earlier this year, there would not have been any redundancy. The problem was credit dried up and competition became too fierce.